So using this logic, it would have to seem that the
easter bunny is not any nicer than Vlad Putin?
That explains the jelly beans, simple bribes!
In many ways, my fictional self is also godlike.
“I must compose myself.”
- Ben Franklin, Printer
ahahha, very true…
one great advantage of having your life described in books one century after you died, is that any wrong doings can be nicely glossed over
Almost entirely fictional?
Don’t forget rape, slavery, robbery, arson, pedophilia, and rape (Old Mo really, really liked rape). His M.O. on his raids was kill, rape, pillage, and burn, usually in that order.
While Christianity has many crimes to atone for (witch hunts, Inquisition, etc.), Jesus himself does not. The most violent thing he did was chase the money changers from the Temple.
And Jesus never felt the need to control his follower’s lives to the point where they had to wipe their ass a certain way.
# Warren Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 9:42 am
there is reasonable cause to believe there was someone who that stuff was based on who actually exsited at the time. people just went a bit overboard when retelling the anecdotes over the years, feeding of the 5,000 = once organised a picnic, that kind of thing.
There is much debate on the subject of whether a historical man named Jesus ever lived. While it cant be proven or disproven, based on the evidence, it is entirely possible that he never did and that an amalgamation of stories about a god-figure were coalesced to be about one man who they called Jesus after the fact. The stories and circumstances of their writing could be about a real person, but their writing didn’t really require him to have actually existed.
First and foremost, good one, author, for the joke played on Jesus at the end…and the fact Mo is that quick to forget the comments by the barmaid against him just to pick on Jesus is all the more funny.
Secondly, the Holy Bible, just like the Koran, is full of stories with very little proof to the events taking place in the exact order as they are listed. Some events depicited in these stories are possibly true events and some names are possibly actual people; but there is very little proof that most of the significant “acts of God” portrayed are truly took place.
Clearly, all the big flashy things attributed to Jesus never happened. No earthquake damaged the temple and let loose the dead to return to their families. That not only would have been reported by the Jewish and Roman historians of the day, it would have induced many to write it down. Events create historians. Besides, who could record such a thing without expecting it to be seen as fiction?
We see nothing but probable forgeries as corroboration of a human Jesus from historians who lived when he did. Messianic Jews were a dime a dozen at the time, and gave the Romans cause to suppress (and document) the worst of them.
I Blame Eusebius.
I blame Eusebius too.
The fucker lost my favourite hairbrush.
I lent it to him last Thursday and then when we met yesterday he didn’t say anything, and then when I texted him last night, he said he’d left it on the tube.
On the tube!
Who brushes their hair on the tube? Have YOU ever seen anyone brushing their hair on the tube. I haven’t.
Eusebius; I say BS.
“That not only would have been reported by the Jewish and Roman historians of the day, it would have induced many to write it down.”
Exactly. Some guy is running around doing clearly impossible things, and nobody bothers to document it until decades after his death? No contemporary eyewitness reports, no investigation by the authorities, no mass panics, nothing at all? The Roman government wouldn’t have been able to completely suppress all information about him.
Imagine what it would be like today if some random guy came forth, raised his hands, and suddenly the dead were climbing out of their graves. Yet the Bible would have you believe that when it happened 2000 years ago nobody found this strange or frightening at all. “Who? Lazarus? Just a dead man who came back to life. Nope, nothing news-worthy about that at all.”
In the Old Testament, they said. God is the judge — but in the New, Christ is the merciful. As a matter of fact, the New Testament is infinitely worse than the Old. In the Old there is no threat of eternal pain. Jehovah had no eternal prison — no everlasting fire. His hatred ended at the grave. His revenge was satisfied when his enemy was dead.
In the New Testament, death is not the end, but the beginning of punishment that has no end. In the New Testament the malice of God is infinite and the hunger of his revenge eternal.
Everlasting punishment. I consider Christianity a neo-Zoroastrian belief. However, the Zoroastrian religion was better in that there was no eternal punishment. After the end time, all souls in hell leave and enter paradise. Christianity should go back to their roots, short of throwing off the mental chains altogether.
Robert G Ingersoll looks like he’s been reading Christopher Hitchens. And presumably he’s also been reading the US’s most famous atheist statesman.
Plus, Jesus’ biography has a thirty year gap.
@Josh– for some of the authors (Matthew, John,) the gap is even greater than 30 years.
@ticticboom — this isn’t the case if you apply the bad math, that 3 is 1. In that case, J-man is either just as bad as himself/dad. He came not to change one tiddle or jot of the law, remember!
NOTE: This comments section is provided as a safe place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.
NAME — Get an avatar
EMAIL — Required / not published
Jesus & Mo is licensed under a Creative Commons License:
Feel free to copy for noncommercial purposes, under the same license.
Please provide a link back to jesusandmo.net
Hosted by NearlyFreeSpeech.NET.